In his post below, Jim suggests that the e-mail he received from the Obama campaign about celebrating the President’s birthday is “a bit creepy”:
[A]sking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a tone-deafness about the cult of personality. If we lived in a dictatorship, getting millions of subjects to celebrate the Dear Leader’s birthday would be routine, but in a free republic this appeal to get millions of citizens to celebrate a current president’s birthday strikes a discordant note to my ear.
No, I am not saying we are in a dictatorship; I am saying that because we are not, we should not be emulating the trappings characteristic of that fundamentally different sort of regime. Nor do I think this is particularly ominous, just a very small step in the wrong direction.
My reaction is quite different. As far as I can tell, Jim received this e-mail because he signed up to be on the Obama campaign’s e-mail list (as was the case with this prior e-mail he blogged about). Politicians and political campaigns maintain lists of supporters for lots of reasons, but I think it’s generally understood that the contents of the communications are pretty light fare. They’re messages to keep supporters engaged and help them feel involved, presumably on the theory that supporters who feel engaged and involved are more likely to give money. I assume that was the idea behind the e-mail; it gives supporters a (rather cheesy) opportunity to feel close to the President. Given that this apparently was just a campaign e-mail, only sent to people who voluntarily signed up to receive such things, I have trouble understanding why Jim sees it as “emulating the trappings” of a dictatorship.
B.D. says:
It’s still creepy. At the very least it invites supporters to think of their president as an uncle or something.
They’re pretty clearly trying to recapture the “spirit of ’08.” In that way, this email serve as a nice reminder of how embarrassing the “spirit of ’08″ really was.
July 28, 2010, 1:26 amObserver says:
Regardless of what you think of the email on the merits, can you imagine the media’s (and Hollywood, etc.) reaction if Laura Bush had sent the same email about her husband’s birthday? What is more troubling is the double standard, not only the substance of the email.
July 28, 2010, 1:29 amrpt says:
I too am glad that you are back, Prof Kerr. This sort of gossipy silliness from Prof. “No Comment” needs debunking. I’m just waiting for the next “Did you hear who they were talking about on Journolist today” post.
Re the “Spirit of ’08″ comment, keep your embarassment to yourself. I’m just glad that vote went the right way and we’re not in the middle of the real Second Great Depression while at war with Russia, Georgia, Mexico, or whichever country was McCain’s enemy du jour.
July 28, 2010, 1:35 amrpt says:
Yes, and when is “the left” and the “lamestream media” going to break their troubling silence about this email? How “troubling” is it?
July 28, 2010, 1:37 amMike says:
I signed a get well card for UFC fighter Wanderli Silva. He’s not my friend. It’s called being a fan boy. Most males are fan boys of someone or some thing.
Jim joined a fan boy list. And he’s mad because they wanted him to sign a card?
LMAO.
July 28, 2010, 1:38 amOrin Kerr says:
B.D.
This is just a guess, but if I had to guess, I would guess that you see yourself as a conservative and you really dislike Obama.
Observer,
It seems a bit unfair to be troubled by an imagined double standard if, hypothetically, something like this happened with the politics reversed. (And more importantly, I assume you hold your self to a higher standard than Hollywood on such matters!)
July 28, 2010, 1:38 amMike says:
Quite a few serious people have “liked” George W. Bush on Facebook. Does this meet the VC’s creepy threshold?
http://www.facebook.com/georgewbush
I think it’s all generally silly. Then again, I e-signed a get-well-card for a professional fight, so who am I to say anything.
July 28, 2010, 1:40 amRicardo says:
We should demand that President Obama refudiate this email immediately.
July 28, 2010, 1:45 amGrover Gardner says:
“Can you imagine if…”
No actually I can’t. Who would care really?
“What is more troubling is the double standard…”
What double standard?
July 28, 2010, 1:50 amdr says:
Thank you, Professor Kerr, for opening comments on Jim Lindgren’s post. Would be great if you would just follow him around and open comments on all his posts, but that’s not fair to you. Maybe someone can teach Lindgren how to open comments for himself?
July 28, 2010, 1:54 amJosh Bornstein says:
Observer’s point (I think): Here we have a real-life situation. I’ll wildly speculate about how the media would have treated the same situation under Prez Bush. Then I’ll whine about how unfair it is, basing my conclusion on the real-life example and my fantasy example that I’ve made up out of whole cloth.
Sigh.
At least a bunch of prior posters have already called-out Observer on his (her??) delusional thought-process. That’s progress, I guess.
July 28, 2010, 2:02 ammatthew says:
I might speak for only myself, but I have trouble seeing most of the things Jim sees (or at least blogs about). Welcome back Professor Kerr.
July 28, 2010, 2:03 amMike B. says:
Thanks Orin. Stand up commentary.
Personally I think demonizing everything our legitimately elected president does is a lot more “creepy” than asking supporters of his to sign a birthday card. But I must admit, that I “signed” the card myself.
Happy Birthday Uncle Barry!
July 28, 2010, 2:20 amLaura S. says:
Yes, I felt that just reading the web-form on Obama’s page. The moment of deluded irrationality when I thought, oh how cute you can leave a message too.
Its quite alluring. Much as if you were at one of Obama’s erstwhile hang-outs in Hyde Park such as Medici’s, getting yourself a nice pizza and Obama appears. You shake his hand right? Say hello, given the chance?
July 28, 2010, 2:25 amJul says:
Nice post O.K.
July 28, 2010, 2:29 amAngus says:
Yes, imagine if the RNC had asked people to sign a birthday card to President Bush during his term in office. Oh, wait! They did — multiple times!
2005:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/07/send_president.php
2006:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657420/posts
2008:
July 28, 2010, 2:34 amhttp://wonkette.com/400737/send-george-bush-jr-a-birthday-card-with-lotsa-munnie-in-it
Cal Lawyer says:
Under the old volokh software, you could choose to block out certain posters. That doesn’t seem to be possible any more. Is that so? It would seem to be to everyone’s advantage to allow that to happen again . . .
July 28, 2010, 2:34 amAnonymous says:
This obviously belongs in the other post’s comments.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=832
July 28, 2010, 2:38 amJul says:
I agree.
July 28, 2010, 2:47 am1040 says:
But then he would find it creepy that the President of all Americans sends mail and shares his happy days only with some of them, and especially not with Jim. Not very creepy, just a little, mind you. Because Jim is a reasonable man.
July 28, 2010, 3:29 amJohn Herbison says:
I am not a mental health professional, but I wonder whether a signficant number of Republican critics of this (or any other) Democratic president meet the criteria for some sort of personality disorder. Mr. Lindgren, I suspect, is merely reverting to type.
For those of us who are old enough to remember, how many bumper stickers did we see during 1993 and 1994 that read “Don’t blame me; I voted for Bush”? A few more of us may remember the obsession with where Bill Clinton’s penis had been. As Newt Gingrich infamously declared, the first impeachment of an elected president came about “Because we could”–speaking of his House Republican colleagues.
To be sure, those on my side of the partisan divide are not immune. The conduct of the five black robed ward heelers in Bush v. Gore still rankles. That lingering discontent, however, pales in comparison to the batshit craziness of the birther movement, or even compared to the filibuster’s having become a routine obstruction of business in the Senate.
Growing up is tough, but we all have to do it sometimes.
July 28, 2010, 3:29 amConstantin says:
I hope this email means I will no longer catch hell here for calling the guy “Barack.”
July 28, 2010, 3:41 amvfgrdswerg says:
I would reply: “I would be happy to sign the card if you send proof of O’s birth date including birth location and if you also explain why Obama has a Connecticut social security number without ever having lived in Connecticut. The current “proof” (certificate of live birth) he has offered can be obtained without having been born in Hawaii. When I know exactly when he was born, I’d be happy to wish him a happy birth day.
The social security number makes me think he is some kind of an imposter. Maybe he isn’t evern Barak Obama. He might be Russian sleeper agent.
July 28, 2010, 4:47 amORID says:
I’m outraged that someone would purposely mischaracterize an innocuous action for political gain!
Are we sure this Professor Kerr posting is the same one who just spent months advising a GOP Senate staff?
Clearly the proper response to the e-mail is:
1) Come up with a clever title.
2) Complain about how this e-mail overturns so much Presidential precedent.
3) Start bringing up this e-mail in random hearings and inject it into the conversation as much as possible.
4) Contact Fox News White House Correspondent (Major Garrett) and have him start asking questions to Robert Gibbs… “Did Michelle Obama personally approve of that message?”
5) Send a speech through GOP whips in the Senate or House (Michelle Bachmann for sure already has a speech teed up about his Obama takeover thing going on).
The other contributor is clearly amatuerish in his response as well…
July 28, 2010, 4:48 amJohn Herbison says:
See what I mean?
July 28, 2010, 4:58 ampoul says:
definitely creepy, reminds me of letters from soviet pupils to dear leader josef stalin.
i did sign the card, but i started it with “dear fuhrer”.
July 28, 2010, 5:16 amRicardo says:
Here
July 28, 2010, 5:20 amBill says:
I’m a lawyer and, I guess, a “progressive”. Even though I disagree strongly with some of the posts on this site (and even find some of the posts downright cold-hearted, if not disgustingly prejudiced), I still put up with these for the many posts that are thought-provoking and/or fun. But with Jim’s post I am removing the VC from my Google Reader.
I’m sure no one here is extremely sad about this, but it puts this site one tiny step closer to the echo chamber so many news and analysis sources on the “right” are becoming.
Such intelligent people, yet so blindly and immovably ideological and illogical.
July 28, 2010, 6:37 amFederal Dog says:
“I assume that was the idea behind the e-mail; it gives supporters a (rather cheesy) opportunity to feel close to the President.”
“I have trouble understanding why Jim sees it as “emulating the trappings” of a dictatorship.”
Why? Controlling the masses by peddling the cheesy illusion of being “close to the President” has a long and creepy history in authoritarian societies.
Just ask, e.g., the victims of Uncle Joe.
July 28, 2010, 7:18 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » JIM LINDGREN: “Asking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a t… says:
[...] UPDATE: Orin Kerr: Relax, it’s just campaign fluff. [...]
July 28, 2010, 7:19 amArkady says:
Well done! Boy, that’ll sure show ‘em.
July 28, 2010, 7:22 amSkyler says:
I don’t think anyone can despise our first openly marxist president more than I do, but I think comparing a campaign birthday card to a North Korean “dear leader” cult is a bit over the top. It’s his birthday, big elections are coming, what’s the big deal?
If he ever amasses enough power to demand elaborate birthday celebrations, then there’d be a case for concern, but for now, it’s just a campaign stunt.
If the birthday card demand were delivered by the brown shirt wannabes that marched in that one video, or by black panthers with clubs, then there’d be room for concern.
There’s too much real stuff to fear than to get worked up about a birthday card stunt. So long as I can refuse to participate and openly mock him, then we’re fine.
July 28, 2010, 7:30 amRichard Riley says:
I will join other commenters above in welcoming Prof Kerr back to the Conspiracy. As this post exemplifies, he’s the house liberal (relatively, of course) keeping everybody honest!
To the people outraged by this innocuous fundraising/rally-the-troops email to Obama’s supporters, what’s your view of the movement a few years ago (thankfully ebbing as far as I can tell) to get a public building or monument named after Ronald Reagan in every single county in the U.S.? Talk about creepy.
July 28, 2010, 7:43 amPierre Corneille says:
Thank you, Mr. Kerr, for this post.
I find it frustrating sometimes to read Mr. Lindgren’s “gosh isn’t it a paradox that I, an opponent of Obama, get his campaign emails” posts when all it comes down to is that Mr. Lindgren signed up to receive them.
July 28, 2010, 7:57 amIsland says:
What I think is creepy is that SHE skips out of the country on his purported birthday and takes her kids with her– and yet wants us to wish him a happy birthday.
July 28, 2010, 8:04 amSkyler says:
Reagan is dead. So is MLK and he’s got a street named after him in every city in the country.
It’s the living politicians getting things named after them that bothers me. Like Byrd. And the USS Carter, USS Bush, etc.
July 28, 2010, 8:06 amJohn Herbison says:
As Garry Trudeau said many years ago when Boopsie (B.D’s wife) was en route to Graceland, “Fifty million necrophiliacs can’t be wrong”.
July 28, 2010, 8:12 amWidmerpool says:
I live in Texas and have been receiving emails from the campaign for the Democratic candidate for Governor, Bill White, asking me to respond with respect to putting a Willie Nelson-type wig on the otherwise bald White. Is this the start of a Willie Nelson cult of personality? Will I be required to smoke doobies, wear pigtails and have my children corrupted by repeated forced listenings to Willie Nelson singing “Whisky River”? Shall I wind up like Alex from A Clockwork Orange and feel the strong urge to vomit everytime I hear someone other than Willie sing “Stardust”? Help!
July 28, 2010, 8:14 amgeokstr says:
Absolutely.
How could anyone not support a birthday card for someone so beatific that he is already causing the seas to recede and the planet to heal, as he fundamentally transforms America in his own image? Let’s make sure that all 57 states get behind it.
July 28, 2010, 8:17 amGhost of Reagan says:
You mean, other than the fact that he’s a partisan hack. Yeah, it sure is puzzling.
July 28, 2010, 8:25 amShelbyC says:
OK, now that’s creepy. Suggesting people who disagree with you politically have mental health proplems is not only an anathema to open political debate, it is an insult to folks who have genuine mental problems, and is rather narcissistic.
July 28, 2010, 8:32 amPierre Corneille says:
Yes, it gives me the creeps, too, when living politicians have things named after them. But didn’t Reagan airport get its name before he passed away?
July 28, 2010, 8:35 amMartinned says:
Have you seen any in the last couple of decades in the US?
July 28, 2010, 8:36 amrpt says:
You have too much SALT in your diet.
July 28, 2010, 9:03 amKen says:
Good morning,
I market health insurance. So a birthday gift I have. I won’t name the name, but one of my carriers is lowering my commissions effective jan 1, 2011. Happy Birthday President Obama.
This same carrier sent us a PDF explaining in plain english some highlights of the new health care law. 2013:
• Contributions to flexible spending accounts are limited to $2,500
per year.
• Medicare payroll tax increases by 0.9 percent for individuals
who make more than $200,000 and couples that make more
than $250,000.
• A new 3.8 percent tax will be added on income from interest, dividends,
annuities, royalties, and rents for those at the same income threshold.
Happy Birthday Mr. President. No new tax increase?? It seems to me this will affect a lot of seniors who traditionally purchase annuities, and CD’s in retirement years
Ken in KY
July 28, 2010, 9:06 amgrog says:
Love how everyone who wants to bash the Kenyan Usurper over something this trivial is studiously ignoring the evidence, helpfully linked above and pointing to a Right Thinking site, that presidential birthday solicitations by First Ladies is a bipartisan activity.
Hacktackular!
And welcome back, Orin.
July 28, 2010, 9:17 amB.D. says:
Orin Kerr
This is just a guess, but if I had to guess, I would guess that you see yourself as a “reasonable” conservative whose self-appointed solemn responsibility it is to correct “unreasonable” conservatism wherever you see it.
To respond directly to your response, yes, I do dislike Obama. I also dislike Bush. Of the last three presidents, I like Clinton the most. So no, I do not see myself as a conservative.
Perhaps my guess is just a bit closer to the mark than yours.
July 28, 2010, 9:20 amKenvee says:
Geez. I don’t like Obama, but this is still a ridiculous complaint. I remember getting a similar request regarding Bush’s birthday card at least once, maybe more. It’s a fairly typical campaign fundraiser.
July 28, 2010, 9:20 amLugo says:
I think Lindgren’s refusal to allow comments on his posts is a bit creepy!
July 28, 2010, 9:20 amS says:
Every-time I get a fundraising letter from Northwestern, I think about how creepy Jim Lindgren’s posts are and what an embarrassment his posts are to that institution. I just can’t support such creepiness. It’s so un-American or at least hints of a “step in the wrong direction.” I should get off their list.
July 28, 2010, 9:21 amJonathan says:
Orin,
July 28, 2010, 9:27 amWelcome back. I’ve missed your interesting analyses of criminal issues and the independent voice that you bring to this site.
krs says:
J. Herbison, I’m pretty sure that that the “vfgrdswerg” post about Russian sleeper agents is satire. I can never be completely sure, as sarcasm/irony is hard to convey in plain text, and there are some nutty things said in earnest in the comments here sometimes, but I’m fairly comfortable saying that it’s probably satire.
To those who’ve taken the comments thread as an opportunity to vent every last negative feeling they have about Prof. Lindgren, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to find the e-mail just a little creepy. Even if you signed up for the list, and even if these faux “personal” e-mails are par for the course, getting such a personal e-mail from someone you don’t know that basically addresses you like one of her children and effectively says “sign daddy’s birthday card”… I can see feeling creeped out even if there’s a rational explanation for it.
July 28, 2010, 9:43 amKevin! says:
I missed Oren. Actually, what I missed was someone with a set of personal and political beliefs that weren’t overwhelmed by a need to ceaselessly and relentlessly fight in the culture wars.
Oren is what happens when someone asks “how does this event compare to my personal beliefs and experience?” Rather then Lindgren’s “how can I use this event to attack, attack, attack my opponents through the dusky prism of my beliefs?”
July 28, 2010, 9:47 amHC says:
Agreed. I’m glad my fundraising dollars allow for NU profs to post about two-bit professors in Connecticut and presidential birthday cards. I hope that the rest of the faculty has the more serious legal issues covered.
July 28, 2010, 9:49 amS says:
krs – it’s creepy that you interpret the message that way.
July 28, 2010, 9:51 amuh_clem says:
To paraphrase Mary Karr – “Some people see obscenity in the crotch of a tree”.
There’s just no accounting for people who twist every ordinary everyday occurrence into a confirmation of their own obsessive beliefs. I truly wonder how the man gets through the day…
July 28, 2010, 10:02 amA. Criminal says:
The wife of a servant asking the bosses to sign the servant’s Christmas card is soooo cute, maybe even touching – “Tell us you like us!”. But it’s creepy because it’s really just sleazy politicians – who’ve forgotten who they work for – pretending to be cute.
July 28, 2010, 10:05 amRyan says:
Finally, a rational mind. Jim’s suggestion that this email was part of some sort of cult of personality is insane. Isn’t it far more liklely that an email to celebrate the president’s birthday is just a tool to engage people? His opinions illustrate the paranoid style in American politics. Also, I thought it was strange how Jim seemed to think the email was personally written to him by Michelle and not just a form email. Seriously, is Jim a birther or a black-helicopter guy?
July 28, 2010, 10:16 amSteve says:
It is pretty weird to bring up the “echo chamber” point in response to a post where one VC contributor flatly disagreed with another contributor’s argument. If Lindgren’s post brings this site one step closer to being an echo chamber, I think Kerr’s post moves it three or four steps in the opposite direction, but to each his own.
Even though I thought Lindgren’s post was quite silly, at least he was contributing original material, unlike the majority of his posts which are more like “look at this shocking story I saw linked on Instapundit!”
Prof. Kerr’s reaction mirrors my own. If I, a Bush critic, had found out that Laura Bush was soliciting signatures for President Bush’s birthday card (or if I had signed up as a Bush supporter and received the request myself, which amounts to the same thing), it never would have occurred to me in a million years that there was anything “creepy” about it.
If liberal blogs had expressed outrage over such a thing, however (and I guess we could look at the historical record to see whether any of them did so), I have a funny feeling people like Jim Lindgren would have considered it a sign of Bush Derangement Syndrome. They probably would have been right about that, even.
July 28, 2010, 10:16 amKamal says:
Orin, how do you guys decide when to turn off comments? Jim seems to have a nasty habit of stating wild and baseless claims, only to leave comments turned off. It’s very frustrating.
July 28, 2010, 10:20 amORID says:
BD,
I’m guessing Orin is like a “libertarian” conservative and thinks people are free to have their wives send out campaign solicitations if they want to. I don’t see how taking an e-mail / letter that many campaigns have used for a long time, and then highlighting it as an anomaly or outside of the mainstream is what I would consider “good blogging”. To be honest there’s a lot on here that I don’t consider to be “good blogging”, rather I see a lot of politically motivated posts that make me think “there’s plenty of avenues I can go if I want to see politically motivated one-sided posts”. Unfortunately I can’t find blogs that engage in honest and open debates / discussion, which is what I feel really helps a democracy thrive.
Given the reduction of news to “talking points” and the “24 hour news cycle” posts like a 6-part blog posting on the 4th amendment and exclusionary rule are a breath of fresh air, and why I come to this site.
For Prof. Kerr’s part there are a number of items related to Kagan I’m interested in understanding, given that he had the biggest role of any blogger I’m aware of. I’m not sure how much a campaign adviser is bound by any agreements, so perhaps like a Judicial Committee Member to SC nominee exchange there may be a post on “generalities” (and to be honest I just started listening to podcasts of Kagan’s hearing… one benefit of our Congress is that they aren’t supposed to work fast). As someone who wanted vigorous questioning of Kagan, I was stunned when Senators went up (like Kyl) and basically admitted they were going to ask questions they had previously telegraphed to her in private. Certainly there is some room for that but there was a huge trove of documents on Kagan released. (I’m on Feingold’s day one questions right now, and I somehow skipped over Kohl).
Maybe I’m just pissed because I’d like to see more “independent thought” from our politics, right now I’m not sure our democracy is driving towards anything other than more GOP-Democrats passing power between them and happy with the status quo.
July 28, 2010, 10:24 amslimslowslider says:
I would like to sign Prof Kerr’s “Welcome Back!” card.
July 28, 2010, 10:24 amMark Field says:
Those of us even older remember similar bumper stickers from the time of Nixon’s impeachment. They said “Don’t blame me, I’m from Massachusetts” or “Don’t blame me, I voted for McGovern”.
Hey, take that back (the “liberal” epithet, anyway)! Prof. Kerr, I’m sure, would disclaim it. What he is, is fair-minded, a quality that can exist in many different political persuasions.
July 28, 2010, 10:26 amKamal says:
I feel the same way Bill. If it wasn’t for the excellent posts by the other contributers such as Eugene and David, i’d surely unsubscribe because of Jim. Signing b-day card = dictatorship? If the comments had been opened, i’d ask him to read http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/07/political_dissonance.php as he obviously needs to become aware of his information bias.
July 28, 2010, 10:27 amyankee says:
Well, hypothetical hypocrisy is weak tea, but I think you’re right about this one. Bringing up visions of a totalitarian dictatorship in response to Laura Bush’s birthday wish request emails would have been utterly deranged.
Angus’s comment above indicates that there was criticism of the Republicans’ birthday wish requests under GWB, but it was aimed at the fact that you had to contribute money to wish the President a happy birthday. The Democrats even responded by setting up their own site where you could send Bush a happy birthday message for free (though I doubt many people took advantage). No accusations that soliciting happy birthday messages from supporters was reminiscent of a dictator’s cult of personality.
Lindgren really jumped the shark with this one.
July 28, 2010, 10:30 amKamal says:
Me too. I hate that when taxing the rich is brought up, people chant that we will loose our executives to Somalia or some ‘more free’ country. GOOD! Do they think it’s hard to find people who don’t want to work and who want to tell people what to do? I know an MBA seems impressive to people who don’t have any skills, but really.. it isn’t. At best, an MBA makes you an evil scumbag that is trying to sell our earth piece by piece.
But in all seriousness, what do you pretend to mean by “independent thought”?
July 28, 2010, 10:31 amKamal says:
And every single one of his idiotic Journolisto posts as well (for which he, in a telling fashion, turned off comments)
July 28, 2010, 10:35 amLN says:
Actually, I find it very creepy. It’s like he’s a totalitarian dictator who knows that the people will not agree with his policies, so he prevents them from speaking up. Now I’m not saying that the Volokh Conspiracy is like Stalin’s Soviet Union, but surely Lindgren is bringing us in the wrong direction.
July 28, 2010, 10:37 amShelbyC says:
Are you kidding? We even let Dutchmen participate.
July 28, 2010, 10:41 amFloridan says:
You have trouble understanding because you are assuming that he is making these statements in good faith.
July 28, 2010, 10:42 amKamal says:
What’s amusing (sad, actually) is that he did so in a post trying to associate a b-day card for obama with the signs of a dictatorship. Looking back, all of Lindgren’s post that I saw, he had comments turned off. I wrote Eugene regarding this. This site is great, and he’s trying to ruin it.
July 28, 2010, 10:50 amCJColucci says:
Was anyone else concerned about Jim’s cheap shot at the President’s wife?
July 28, 2010, 10:56 amKen Arromdee says:
I consider the impeachment perfectly appropriate and a bit deserved. Clinton had an alliance with feminists and supported laws that were obsessed with where one’s penis had been. Him getting impeached for this was merely a matter of being forced to abide by the rules he put into place for everyone else.
July 28, 2010, 11:01 amKamal says:
What a delightful obliviousness to reality. Do you honestly believe this, or did you just want to say something pretty?
July 28, 2010, 11:02 amKamal says:
There seems to be a lot to be concerned about regarding Jim. If you have read the blog posts by Ezra Klien, the person who founded Journolisto, regarding the recent ‘controversies’ Jim’s other posts would seem ludicrous. Which again begs the question of why he turns off comments.
July 28, 2010, 11:05 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
I wonder how many times “Ricardo Fumare” and “Pat McGroin”, et.al., will sign this thing.
July 28, 2010, 11:05 amMartinned says:
My point was re: echo chamber. Both in the US and elsewhere, the internet and the increased number of TV and radio stations makes it ever easier for people to sort themselves into (politically) homogenous groups, to the detriment of genuine public debate. Judging from some of the earlier comments, Lindgren’s posts seem to be pushing VC in that direction as well, since they seem to have the effect of discouraging particularly the more liberal commenters from reading this blog.
July 28, 2010, 11:05 amDangerMouse says:
It’s really ridiculous how many of you are gushing with joy over finally being able to comment on this stupid topic. I find that much more amusing than the issue being discussed. Maybe that’s why certain threads are closed? To build up petty lib resentment and then let it overwhelm the next poster? Heh.
July 28, 2010, 11:06 amDave N. says:
It must be a slow news day for this to generate 60 comments (and counting). I agree with Orin that this is no big deal. However, Jim Lindgren is right in the very narrow sense that Presidential hagiography is kind of creepy.
Every President since Reagan (and probably before) sent similar things to their supporters. Even though I liked President Reagan, the year I received his picture in the mail my mind immediately flashed to those ubiquitous pictures of Chairman Mao and Lenin that are so common in Communist countries.
Frankly, there should be a rule that a politician be out of office for 20 years before anything can be named for him or her. Those politician who were truly significant can be honored in their lifetime but long after they are out of power.
Thus, I have no problem with the U.S.S. Jimmy Carter (even though I think he was an abysmal President) but I do with the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush (even though I liked him).
July 28, 2010, 11:09 amKamal says:
Actually, for me, it’s more about being able to comment on any story Jim spins, not just this specific instance.
July 28, 2010, 11:09 amRandy says:
Kamal: “What’s amusing (sad, actually) is that he did so in a post trying to associate a b-day card for obama with the signs of a dictatorship. Looking back, all of Lindgren’s post that I saw, he had comments turned off.”
The first step to dictatorship is to eliminate discussion, especially discussion you don’t like. I can hear Lindgren’s evil laughter through the innertubes on to my laptop.
July 28, 2010, 11:11 amyankee says:
Fortunately, the better conspirators still offer enough good content that I can tolerate the presence of bloggers like Lindgren.
July 28, 2010, 11:11 amKamal says:
This is a strange fear. I really don’t understand it. How does the photo of Reagan connect to Mao or Lenin in a way that the idolizing of our founding father’s doesn’t?
July 28, 2010, 11:12 amGordo says:
Jim reacted the way Jim did because Jim is suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. Proof that “intellectuals” of the right can be as fatuous, paranoid, and stupid as “intellectuals” of the left were with George W. Bush.
July 28, 2010, 11:12 amKamal says:
Agreed. Even though I vehemently disagree with him on pretty much every post, David is one of my favorite bloggers here. I wish there was a way to filter out a blogger when subscribing to the feed, the way Engadget allows you to do so to filter out posts about Apple (or any other topic you don’t want to see).
July 28, 2010, 11:14 amTexEd says:
I can almost guarantee what will happen if Jim “signs” that Obama birthday greeting; he will get a telephone call from a fund raising ‘phone bank thanking him for his kind thought and asking for a donation to help Obama gain some of the other objectives that are so important.
July 28, 2010, 11:14 amCreepy or not, “Michelle’s” message seems like nothing more that a fund raising screening device.
Arthur Kirkland says:
Even if one grants substantial leniency and accepts the “creepy” reaction as reasonable, that does not address turning that reaction into a hit-and-run, baselessly partisan blog post.
I receive e-mails from the RNC (and, formerly, the Bush campaign). I attributed my spot on those lists to Federal Society event attendance. I have been asked to send “special” messages, sign cards — even birthday cards, I think — and petitions, have my name enrolled and inscribed and my opinion registered and delivered, contribute to “intimate” policy sessions, etc. etc. etc. The Democrats are similar, but not identical (Dems seem to emphasize celebrity pol names jumping out from the inbox). The idea that the “birthday card for Barack” project distinguishes Democrats in any way is silly when harbored privately. The post that triggered this thread was humiliating, but not in the direction intended.
July 28, 2010, 11:16 amyankee says:
I’d prefer waiting until they’re dead, but the 20 year rule would be acceptable as well. We could stand to get rid of the Presidential coronation and replace it with a five-minute ceremony in the Rose Garden too.
July 28, 2010, 11:17 amSteve says:
What I learned is that if I’m going to be out of town on business on my wife’s birthday, it’s strange if I try to get anyone to sign a birthday card for her. I still haven’t figured out why it’s strange, but I’m hoping there will be a followup post.
July 28, 2010, 11:18 amBruce Boyden says:
“I have trouble understanding why Jim sees it as ‘emulating the trappings’ of a dictatorship.”
That’s because you’re not trying to get annoyed at people on the other side of the aisle, Orin. Try harder!
July 28, 2010, 11:24 amDave N. says:
It was not a fear at all. I just remember thinking it was slightly creepy. I shared the thought that I had when I received the picture. “What am I supposed to do with this?” and flashing on the Mao/Lenin cults of personality. The thought left me rather quickly.
I have no problems with photos of politicians if the person displaying the picture is also in the picture (I have one of me shaking hands with George H.W. Bush in my office). I don’t even have a problem with the picture of President Obama (or any other President) hanging in government buildings during their stewardship of the country. But frankly, I am surprised that you, of all posters, would equate Ronald Reagan with the founding fathers. I consider him the best President of my adult lifetime, but there is a clear difference in my mind between him and Washington, Jefferson, et al.
July 28, 2010, 11:26 amLN says:
I remember being shocked to discover that Lindgren is a law professor at Northwestern who graduated from Yale with honors and earned two advanced degrees from Chicago. Politics really is the mind-killer.
July 28, 2010, 11:29 amCalderon says:
You know what’s really creepy? Books. Often when I read books I want to publicly post my comments on the book because I know the other 6 billion people on the planet want to hear my opinions, as an anonymous person who is irrelevant in the grand (or even less than grand) scheme of things. Yet book authors do not allow comments — sheer totalitarianism.
On a slightly more serious note, I’m always bemused when people complain that a blogger does not allow comments. I just don’t get how someone would take umbrage at not being given a forum to publicly post their thoughts, where their forum is not available in so many other areas. I understand, of course, that LN’s post was tongue-in-cheek, but there have been previous comments threads were posters seemed genuinely angry about Barnett or Lindgren not opening comments.
July 28, 2010, 11:29 amBleh says:
Yeah, Laura Bush just asked for money, not for anyone to sign a card. Not that I care that she did, but people really do have short memories when the chance comes along to paint someone they don’t like in the WORST possible light (e.g., dictator).
On a side note: Professor Kerr, it’s good to have you back at the VC.
July 28, 2010, 11:34 amKamal says:
I respect Ronald Reagan a lot. I disagree with many of his policies, but unlike Bush he had integrity and intelligence. My question remains.. what separates the idolizing of Reagan from the idolizing of Washington? They were just men; men less informed and educated then men today, by virtue of living in an age with less solid knowledge. Romanticizing the knowledge of our founders is more dangerous than respecting the intelligence of modern and progressive thinkers because it establishes that you are willing to forgo new insight on the basis of previous beliefs.
July 28, 2010, 11:37 amAnderson says:
Jim joined a fan boy list. And he’s mad because they wanted him to sign a card?
Mike is too sane for the internet.
July 28, 2010, 11:38 amtroll_dc2 says:
This is what Northwestern’s Web site says about Lindgren:
Does anyone know whether he tolerates disagreement in his classroom?
July 28, 2010, 11:42 amwolfefan says:
This is an old tradition. I have a book of political campaign memorabilia someplace with a picture of people signing a “birthday card for Ike” back in the 50′s. Americans back then were not only encouraged to sign birthday cards to him, but millions of Americans wore buttons (probably under duress) saying that they “liked” him. The mind boggles at how much worse the cult of celebrity would have gotten if he had gotten a third or fourth term!
July 28, 2010, 11:46 amBleh says:
PS: I couldn’t find any other stories about Bush’s letter asking for birthday money, so I guess the left-wing media didn’t really throw a tatrum about it after all. The CNN story even sites times when Democrats have done it, to show that it’s not just a republican thing, and doesn’t refer to what Laura Bush was doing as “creepy”.
July 28, 2010, 11:48 amDave N. says:
I don’t idolize Washington. I do think the founders did something historically significant in the founding of the country. But the clear difference between a picture of Washington and Reagan at the time was that Washington had been dead for a long, long time. Reagan was alive and occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
July 28, 2010, 11:51 amtroll_dc2 says:
In case you want to know a little more about the Blogger Who Hates Responses, this is his Wikipedia profile.
July 28, 2010, 11:54 amMark Field says:
I very much agree with this. In fact, I’d carry it further and make it at least 20 years after they’re dead.
July 28, 2010, 11:56 amArthur Kirkland says:
To avoid any concern that “Federal Society” is being advanced as a slur analogous to “Democrat Party,” I apologize for inadvertently omitting the “ist.”
Some of my best friends are Federalist Society members, and I occasionally enjoy the Society’s events.
July 28, 2010, 12:02 pmToday's Tom Sawyer says:
So, the best defense that this is not about a sligh bit of personality cult is that it is a telemarketing campaign? So it’s not creepy, just pandering and annoying. So presidents really have no dignity, maybe it’s time we just quit bothering with them.
And to the commenter who gets mail from the RNC, I doubt that is due to Fed Soc since I have attended their events and have not recieved any such emails.
July 28, 2010, 12:02 pmLN says:
I think a lot of people read the blog because of the opportunity to engage in a back-and-forth in the comments section. If Lindgren was writing a solo blog without comments, most of the people here would have an easy time ignoring it, but he’s kinda “cheating” by posting on a blog that people read for the interactivity.
July 28, 2010, 12:07 pmTony says:
Not to pile on, but maybe it’s time Prof. Lindgren start a separate blog for the material that doesn’t quite fit a lawblog.
July 28, 2010, 12:08 pm1040 says:
well, the only logical assumption is that michelle might want jim lindgren to perform some of her wifely obligations. especially on such an important day as “dear leader’s” birthday. now, of course, since there are millions (citation: lindgren’s post that dutifully links to some citations on this) of people, the chance that lindgren will be the one chosen for this honor is small, but it does mark a small step down the slippery slope to rampant sodomy. not a big step, only a small one and it is only a tad creepy. because jim lindgren is a reasonable man.
July 28, 2010, 12:13 pmLugo says:
Go to the book’s page on amazon.com, and you can comment to your heart’s content! And, your opinions
will actually matter – amazon ratings do affect book sales.
Was Reagan still in office when things were named after him? The Reagan Building and the airport weren’t so named until the 1990s.
July 28, 2010, 12:13 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Be careful — if such a policy did not include a grandfather provision, many good people would go mad trying to reach destinations in West Virginia.
July 28, 2010, 12:18 pmAnderson says:
James Lindgren is a leading scholar in the growing movement of New Legal Empiricists.
Hey, I think I still have their first album!
… Google suggests that the NLE = Lindgren pretty much, so the main way they have a growing movement is if Lindgren accelerates himself, I guess.
July 28, 2010, 12:19 pmAnderson says:
Trappings of dictatorship (chez moi): torture, indefinite detention, denial of habeas, illegal surveillance, suppression of dissent, military aggression under false pretenses.
Trappings of dictatorship (chez Jim Lindgren): e-mails requesting birthday greetings.
July 28, 2010, 12:28 pmyankee says:
That’s unfair, those are more trappings of authoritarianism than of dictatorship. Today’s China has a lot of that stuff but it’s run by an oligarchy, not a dictator.
July 28, 2010, 12:40 pmt1 says:
Orin, I think I can explain the difference between your reaction and that of Mr. Lindren.
He’s batshit crazy and you’re not.
July 28, 2010, 12:42 pmjosh says:
Have to disagree on the question of whether Lingren’s posts are creepy. I’m praying that he and Bernstein ramp up the conspiracy theories again this coming election so my side picks up another 3-5 points.
Lingren and Orly Taitz are the greatest things to happen to the Democratic Party since Richard J. Daley.
July 28, 2010, 12:48 pmAnderson says:
That’s unfair, those are more trappings of authoritarianism than of dictatorship.
I was thinking of the United States, not China, but I take your point. Tho the “Dear Leader” stuff harkens back to Mao, surely.
July 28, 2010, 12:52 pmDr. Weevil says:
Pierre Corneille wrote (8:35am):
That’s an easy question to answer, and the answer is “Yes, but”, with a very big “but”. (I like big buts, and I cannot lie.) Reagan announced his Alzheimer’s in 1994. It was several years later before big things started being named after him. Here’s Wikipedia (the main Reagan article):
I have the impression his Alzheimer’s progressed fairly rapidly, so I doubt that he ever knew he had an airport, a trade center, and an aircraft carrier named after him. I always thought the whole point of not naming things after living politicians is to prevent them from deriving political advantage. When the chances of a politician deriving any advantage from it are 0.000%, it seems fair to make an exception. As far as Reagan’s political career was concerned, he might as well have been dead when these things were named after him. I dont’ see why Ariel Sharon shouldn’t have things named after him as if he were dead – he’s been in a persistent vegetative state for 4 1/2 years.
July 28, 2010, 12:55 pmElliot says:
Because dictators have adopted that trapping, using massive public rallies and public mobilization to strengthen a cult of personality.
July 28, 2010, 12:58 pmyankee says:
I know, my (apparently too subtle) point was that accusing the Bush administration of “trappings of dictatorship” is unfair. Likewise with Obama, to the extent he’s continued Bush’s policies on those points. But those policies did (and do) have trappings of authoritarianism.
July 28, 2010, 1:00 pmSkyler says:
Jim Lindgren’s new post is just silly. Surely he knows that political campaigns collect email addresses no matter what the source.
July 28, 2010, 1:02 pmCJColucci says:
Folks may have noticed that Jim has responded — no comments allowed, of course — that he didn’t join a supporters’ mailing list, he simply e-mailed the campaign for information. This, he suggests, means that Orin’s opinion is based on a factual error.
July 28, 2010, 1:03 pmHere’s an opinion not based on a factual error: Jim’s batshit insane to make such a big deal out of an innocuous piece of electronic junk mail, no matter how he got himself on the mailing list.
Dave N. says:
Lugo,
I was responding to Kamal. We had been going back-and-forth about a photograph of Reagan that I received from the RNC sometime in the mid 80s, when Reagan was President and which I thought was mildly creepy.
He asked me how a picture of Reagan was different from a picture of Washington. You commented on my post responding to THAT.
I think Reagan clearly belongs in a list of the top 10 Presidents. However, I also think renaming National Airport in his honor and putting his name on a bunch of federal buildings and an aircraft carrier so relatively soon after the end of his Presidency was a bit much.
(National was renamed in 1998; the carrier was commissioned in 2001)
July 28, 2010, 1:16 pmluxurytwist says:
And Lindgren was completely insane to think that knee-jerk commenters who are guaranteed to bash him and and defend Obama under any circumstances would be swayed by additional information, as if the facts were germane.
I agreed with Kerr that it was innocuous to send such an email to campaign supporters/contributors. I do not agree that it’s equally innocuous to send it to anyone who contacted the campaign. Apparently the assumption is that any reporter contacting the campaign in a professional capacity can be presumed to be an Obama fanboy. Probably correct 90 percent of the time…
July 28, 2010, 1:19 pmElliot says:
Nobody is prevented from speaking up about Lindgren’s comments. Notice that Kerr will often follow a closed-comments post by Lindgren or Bernstein with an opinion on their comment. He has comments open, and that’s where people vent at Lindgren and Bernstein. Lindgren simply passes the comment monitoring duty to someone else. The system works.
July 28, 2010, 1:20 pmNate says:
Note that Lindgren now has a ‘gotcha’ post up about how he ended up on the Obama listserv. Of course, he fails to mention that he must have been getting these emails for two years, since he acknowledges he emailed ‘the campaign’, yet he has never bothered to click the ‘unsubscribe’ button that is at the bottom of every single one.
July 28, 2010, 1:25 pmJeff J says:
As one who is not an Obama supporter, I have no problems with this e-mail. Why is asking for birthday wishes more “creepy” than asking for money or volunteer service for Obama’s next campaign? If I understand it correctly, this e-mail came from Obama’s campaign, not from the White House. Of course a political campaign is going to ask people on the mailing list to encourage the candidate for whom the campaign exists.
July 28, 2010, 1:29 pmAnonny says:
Nate-
July 28, 2010, 1:30 pmThat “gotcha” post was so strident over so little that I almost expected to hear a single party favor being blow after reading it.
Commenter says:
I agree with Lindgren on the merits of this issue, but I also feel it is unacceptable for him not to allow comments. It diminishes this blog site greatly, and although it is ultimately Volokh’s choice to allow this, it should still be criticized.
If you don’t have time to moderate comments (to whatever extent you would like to do so), then you simply don’t have time to post at all.
Plus, perhaps this misunderstanding could have been cleared up in one thread instead of requiring THREE.
July 28, 2010, 1:32 pmt1 says:
The other possibility is that in addition to being batshit crazy, maybe Mr. Lindgren is, like, old or something and doesn’t understand how e-mails work.
In his last post about the e-mail he received it was titled: “Barack Obama sends me personal email thanking me for passing health care”
I guess Lindgren thought it was “personal” because the e-mail was addressed to Lindgren’s first name. Of course, the millions of people who received that e-mail also had it addressed “personally” to them.
Then in the previous post Mr. Lindgren went through the e-mail line by line and asked “Does Obama really believe X”, “Does Obama really believe Y” and so forth. This seems to assume that Obama sat down at his laptop and pecked out the contents of the e-mail before typing in Mr. Lindgren’s e-mail and name and pressing the “send” button. I sort of doubt that is the way that it happened.
July 28, 2010, 1:37 pmLN says:
Lindgren’s posts are awesome. He may as well be writing “Brains! BRAINS! BRAAAINNNZZZ!!!” over and over again.
July 28, 2010, 1:38 pmKevin! says:
I can only hope Lindgren’s pompous “YOU SIR, HAVE ERRED” post keeping alive his birthday card –> fascism concept is meant as parody.
Otherwise it’s pathetic.
July 28, 2010, 1:40 pmfalse seriousness says:
Are you joking? You don’t think emails like this go out all the time for republicans? And in fact did for W by his wife Laura?
That’s pathetic. The double standard is Lindgren’s pretending that this hasn’t gone on like crazy by politicians of all stripes – he just didn’t care when it involved wingnuts.
July 28, 2010, 1:40 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
I think the email is creepy. Political parties are often creepy, the way many members’ communications mimic personality cults. The members are called to celebrate favored cult leaders personal days or accomplishments, and called alarmingly to defend criticisms and attacks, without much consideration of merit. Mrs. Obama’s email falls in that category.
Everyone I know who has been kicked by communism feels the same ickiness about that kind of party communications.
July 28, 2010, 1:42 pmLN says:
This sinister tricksiness reminds me of how the Communist Party in the USSR would suppress freedom of information in the interests of propoganda. Now I’m not saying that Michelle Obama is like a member of the Politburo, but surely this horribly disturbing practice brings the United States one step closer to totalitarianism.
July 28, 2010, 1:42 pmDave N. says:
I know this going a bit afield, but the best example of why NOT to name something after a living politician is Ted Stevens International Airport in Anchorage.
I realize Stevens was ultimately vindicated, but what if he hadn’t been?
July 28, 2010, 1:43 pmKevin! says:
I think there’s a factual dispute here over whether sending an e-mail to Obama constitutes voluntary consent to be placed on his e-mail list. I would say probably yes.
July 28, 2010, 1:45 pma_non says:
In a dictatorship, by definition, there is no option to unsubscribe.
July 28, 2010, 1:45 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
I should add, for balance, that I am moved by President Reagan’s speeches and vision of America, but many of his hagiographies creep me out.
July 28, 2010, 1:45 pmcboldt says:
July 28, 2010, 1:45 pmbill says:
This is sort of what I’m thinking. Perhaps Lindgren doesn’t realize what almost all of the commenters do- if you give your e-mail address to someone, politician or not, odds are that they will pound you with e-mails unless you explicitly request not to receive any and even then you may well receive plenty.
July 28, 2010, 1:45 pmKamal says:
As opposed to the knee-jerk commentators (Jim) who started this non-story. What’s next, posts regarding journolisto emails taken out of context, with comments turned off? Oh wait.. check
July 28, 2010, 1:46 pmKevinM says:
At least he’s not having Marilyn Monroe (or the modern equivalent-Lady Gaga? Christina Hendricks? Obama Girl?) sing Happy Birthday to him at Madison Square Garden.
July 28, 2010, 1:51 pmgj says:
I run my own mail server, and so have the luxury of generating unique email addresses on the fly. For example, when I signed up for a Borders Reward card, I gave my email address as “borders@mydomain.com”. Email sent to these unique addresses makes it’s way to a separate low-priority inbox in my mail client.
I received an Obama birthday email on one of these accounts yesterday. I really didn’t pay it any attention – just said “Meh, no thanks” and deleted it along with the other spam. Since I’m definitely not on any Democratic mailing lists, and the email came to one of my unique addresses, it *may* have come from a purchased mailing list. Then again, maybe not – I’ve given unique addresses to various government entities in the past as well, so this may have (somehow) come from one of those contacts.
However you slice it, though… I wouldn’t have expected to see this email. Yet I did.
July 28, 2010, 2:06 pmL says:
“Joan is not a Marilyn. Marilyn is a Joan.”
July 28, 2010, 2:08 pmxx says:
None of this is as offensive as Obama’s computerized listserv thinking my name is Monica. What kind of cult-of-personality egomaniacal president goes around re-naming his constituency?
July 28, 2010, 2:14 pmt1 says:
Wait, wanna know what is even creepier?
I made the max donation to the Obama campaign as well as frequent contributions to the DNC and other democrats. (And to the NRA, by the way!)
I have a gmail account reserved for spammy stuff that I always give as my contact. I went back and searched that just now and, guess what, NO INVITATION TO SIGN THE DEAR LEADER’S BIRTHDAY CARD!!!
There were scores of e-mails for other PACS, things seeking support for congressional candidates in other states, etc.
What gives? Does the Dear Leader have doubts about my loyalty?
July 28, 2010, 2:14 pmMark Jones says:
I find the birthday email message offputting. But I also recognize that I have nothing but contempt for Obama, so I understand that my reaction doesn’t mean it _is_ creepy, only that it seems so to me.
July 28, 2010, 2:21 pmGuest101 says:
If “massive public rallies and public mobilization” in support of a political figure constitute trappings of dictatorship, then we’ve been a dictatorship since the days of Washington.
July 28, 2010, 2:23 pmLN says:
I also did not receive this invitation to sign Dear Leader’s birthday card, despite my unyielding commitment to the cause of destroying America by supporting Kenyan usurpers. But it’s OK, I’m sure Dear Leader had a good reason for not inviting me. He always knows best.
July 28, 2010, 2:24 pmAnderson says:
Nobody is prevented from speaking up about Lindgren’s comments.
Indeed, some enterprising soul could start a blog devoted to providing an open thread on each Lindgren post. I seem to recall that an ObWi poster did something similar re: Charles Bird’s posts there.
I realize Stevens was ultimately vindicated, but what if he hadn’t been?
Easy. Rename it the Sarah Palin International-and-Right-Next-to-Russia Airport.
July 28, 2010, 2:25 pmgeokstr says:
A few days back there were more complaints about Lindgren closing comments. I said that I remember back in the days when he did open comments, and how he was subjected to personal ad hom after ad hom by the leftists. One of the current leftists claimed that wasn’t true.
These are just the comments that have something more than just snide but more indirect ridicule or sarcasm directed at Professor Lindgren, of which there were many, all from leftists.
The prosecution rests.
Interesting too that all the leftists are having a verbal orgasm in welcoming Professor Kerr back, in the same way they love David Frum, David Brooks and Kathleen Parker, all “conservatives” who love to bash conservatives.
July 28, 2010, 2:25 pmKen Arromdee says:
There’s a form of sarcasm commonly used on the Conspiracy. It consists of pretending that something which is making ludicrous claims about itself actually is what it purports to be and responding to it on that basis. This commonly happens with such examples as obviously contrived judicial decisions which pretend to be using legitimate precedent, or obviously biased media which pretend to be objective.
Someone who questions what “Obama” says in a mass-produced Obama letter that is phrased as a personal letter is actually using this form of sarcasm. He does not really believe that the letter was a personal and individual communication from Obama. But it’s pretending to be, and he’s pretending to respond to it as what it’s pretending to be.
Unfortunately, the art of recognizing sarcasm seems to be lost among some posters.
July 28, 2010, 2:26 pmuh_clem says:
Lindgren:
Somewhat off topic, but I’m appalled that a law professor would use imprecise language like this in a publicly written statement. Botching comprise-compose is one of those things that gets you downgraded to a C in freshman English.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled partisan hack-fest
July 28, 2010, 2:26 pmAnderson says:
… Jesus, somebody please explain “UNSUBSCRIBE” to Lindgren.
It’s not new, legal, or empiricist enough for him to be already aware of it.
July 28, 2010, 2:27 pmLN says:
Calling a spade a spade is not an ad hominem attack, geokstr. You need to brush up on your Latin.
July 28, 2010, 2:29 pmAnderson says:
Botching comprise-compose is one of those things that gets you downgraded to a C in freshman English.
Uh Clem, you have an exalted idea of what goes on in Comp 101 these days. It’s more like this. (Still one of the funniest things I’ve ever read, IMHO — but then, I’ve taught Comp 101.)
(For those wondering, “The whole comprises the parts; the parts compose the whole” (Am. Heritage Coll. Dict. 3d ed.).)
July 28, 2010, 2:33 pmwolfefan says:
To add to uh_clem @2:26, I note the words of the great Nero Wolfe:
July 28, 2010, 2:34 pm“Contact is not a verb under this roof.”
Phil Smith says:
Is the Office of the President (or political campaigns) subject to CAN-SPAM?
July 28, 2010, 2:37 pmt1 says:
Meh… he’s okay for a Bush torture apologist, I guess.
I, too, would assume sarcasm with most people. But, you see, Lindgren seems to be really upset by all of this. He’s the one rambling on about the incipient Cult of Personality and other whackadoodle nonsense.
Are you suggesting that this is just all a joke and that Lindgren really isn’t at all perturbed by the invitation to sign the birthday card? That he is really just offering a parody of conservative tea-bagger paranoia? If so, well played, Sir.
July 28, 2010, 2:40 pmwolfefan says:
Hi geokster –
I’m not into the name-calling either. I agree with you that Prof. Lindgren was not always treated well back when he used to open comments, although many of his posts seem to me to be especially nit-picky, hair-splitting and intentionally tendentious and thus invite such impolite responses. That’s just my opinion – you probably disagree.
What I don’t get is why Prof. Lindgren thinks it’s creepy to get this e-mail. Did he think it was creepy to get the other e-mails he’s gotten from the Obama folks? If so, why didn’t he just unsubscribe so he wouldn’t be creeped out any more? Now that he knows that the GW Bush people did the same thing (albeit as a fund-raiser), does that make the Obama e-mail more or less creepy to him? Does he think that GW Bush was the first to do this? If so, I wouldn’t say he’s crazy – perhaps just rationally ignorant. :)
The benefit of open comments is the interaction it allows between Conspirator and commenter. I have learned a lot from this interaction, and my views and opinions have grown and changed as a result. Even when my mind isn’t changed by the colloquy, I learn new things and develop a greater appreciation and respect for those with whom I disagree. I still remember Todd’s post from a year or two back on abortion and what led people to their positions on the question. It was one of the most interesting, informative, and occasionally moving things I’ve read on the internet. I wish that all the Conspirators would allow me the same opportunity, although I understand the reasons why they may choose not to.
July 28, 2010, 2:49 pmKevin! says:
An ad hominem attack attempts to discredit the premise by attacking an irrelevant aspect of personal character. Calling Lindgren a partisan hack moves in the opposite direction: the ridiculousness of his logical premise reveals something about his personal character.
Ad Hominem: “This is not fascist because Lindgren is a partisan hack.”
July 28, 2010, 2:49 pmNot Ad Hominem: “Lindgren is a partisan hack because he links ordinary birthday messages to fascism.”
Anthony says:
No. CAN-SPAM is limited to commercial email.
July 28, 2010, 2:50 pmKamal says:
Jim is commenting on Kerr’s post? What a dick. He won’t allow anyone to comment on his.
July 28, 2010, 2:51 pmLN says:
Personally, I find your constant desire to attack your political opponents pretty creepy. It reminds me of how Stalin would actively destroy any potential rivals. I’m not saying that you want to turn America into Communist Russia, but I do think you want to bring us in that direction.
July 28, 2010, 2:52 pmKen Arromdee says:
Don’t be ridiculous. Anyone can create their own blog and post an entry which comments on Jim’s post.
July 28, 2010, 2:55 pmKamal says:
There is something called “Information Bias”. Basically, he wants to trash Obama, so he approaches all information he receives with that bias. In this case, he received an email about a birthday card, and he somehow managed to skim that for any connection to something bad that he could find – fascism.
I’m certain he did this with Bush as well, when Laura asked for donations for his birthday. He isn’t a partisan hack after all.
July 28, 2010, 2:55 pmKamal says:
What does that have to do with anything?
July 28, 2010, 2:57 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Does EV recognize any process where a poster could be impeached…or “delinked”…or whatever the kids are calling it these days?
July 28, 2010, 2:57 pmkrs says:
Slow day at the VC, it seems.
July 28, 2010, 3:02 pmepluribus says:
I am neither a Republican nor a conservative (I am a registered Independent and consider myself moderate), yet I have received emails and letters from John Boehner, Newt Gingrich, and Hillsdale College, including solicitations for contributions, for years. I have asked, even demanded, that I be removed from these lists, with little notable success. Creepy No. Dictatorial? I don’t think so. Offensive? Yes, to me. That’s why I have asked that I be removed from the lists. Worth a blog on Volokh? I don’t think so.
July 28, 2010, 3:04 pmRPT says:
In other creepy news:
“Jul 28, 2010 11:47 am US/Pacific
Nancy Reagan Attends Ceremony Honoring Husband
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Signs ‘Ronald Reagan Day’ Into Law
SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) ―
Former first lady Nancy Reagan has joined Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in Simi Valley for a ceremonial signing of a bill making it Ronald Reagan Day every Feb. 6 in California.
Reagan’s 100th birthday is Feb. 6.
The 89-year-old former first lady, wearing a yellow pantsuit and balancing on a cane and the governor’s arm, walked into the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. She smiled as Schwarzenegger sat at a desk and ceremoniously signed a pair of bills Tuesday morning. He officially signed them July 19.
The other bill establishes a commission to plan Reagan centennial events.
Schwarzenegger told the audience, “Ronald Reagan is my hero.”
The governor says Ronald Reagan Day will allow schools to teach about Reagan and be a day in which Californians can remember his legacy.”
July 28, 2010, 3:05 pmAnderson says:
A poll on “least popular VC blogger” would be interesting, tho they’re unlikely to host it; we could do one off-site, but who would come to the party?
(Or for that matter “least popular VC commenter.” I think I’d have a decent shot at the honors.)
July 28, 2010, 3:06 pmCalderon says:
I just don’t understand this attitude. Each post I’ve seen at VC has a generally descriptive title, and the author of the post right below their title. If you don’t want to read a particular author, you can (gasp) scroll past his posts. I know losing that split second of your life is crucial to someone who spends their time commenting on blogs, but I’m sure you can deal with it.
July 28, 2010, 3:07 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Interesting point. Given the Conspirators’ general leanings with respect to competition, tenure and similar points, a relegation system seems a natural (it also might excuse Prof. Volokh from the unpleasant consideration of whether to heave a Conspirator): Every year, the lowest-rated Conspirator would be invited to expand his blogging horizons in a new direction.
The relegation process could be interesting.
July 28, 2010, 3:08 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Dream on.
July 28, 2010, 3:11 pmptt says:
The VC, quite deservedly, enjoys a certain gravitas, blog-wise. People are naive to think that Lindgren doesn’t understand technology or how emails work. First of all, anyone who engages in public policy or who makes above a certain amount of money routinely gets appeals for support and for money by post and by email (the real culprit for all this “creepy” falsely intimate bilge we get is a certain Mr. Viguerie, whose political affiliation shall go unsaid). Secondly, he blocks commentary from VC readers BUT NOT links to/from other sites parroting the topics. Readers of those sites and anyone doing, say, a Google search will see the links and think, “Ah, even the VC covered this. There must be something to it!”
If I were a VCer, I’d be offended at the tactic, but I’m not, so I just think it’s smarmy and pine for the days when one could at least block threads based on their authorship. That wouldn’t change what’s going on, of course, but it would keep my blood pressure from spiking.
July 28, 2010, 3:22 pmFederal Dog says:
I’m wondering if the commenters who are STILL going on
and on
and on
and on
and on
and on about “bat shit crazy” Jim Lindgren’s not opening comments to accommodate their hysteria ever READ their own posts before wondering why he doesn’t spend all day cleaning up deranged attacks?
Start the WE HATE JIM LINDGREN!!!!!!!!!111!!111!!!1 blog already and rage to your hearts’ content. You wrongly assume that your Lindgren obsession is relevant to this site’s readers.
And BTW, that all goes tenfold — at least — for the people who swarm out of the woodwork at the mere whiff of a Bernstein post.
July 28, 2010, 3:23 pmAnderson says:
Dream on.
Ha! See if I vote for you now!
July 28, 2010, 3:26 pmt1 says:
Unlike Lindgren’s creepy obsession with the Dear Leader, of course, which is of interest to all.
July 28, 2010, 3:27 pmptt says:
The worst offender, as far as I can tell, is Newt. Like clockwork, every time a list of CEOs comes out or an article mentioning my partner gets published, someone from Newt’s camp calls and invites him “and his wife” to Newt’s next intimate dinner for 2,500. The assumption, of course, is that, as a CEO, my partner must be a Republican. A couple years back, having given up on telling them to take us off the list, I at least tried to set them straight (ahem) on the gender of his “wife”. In my rather deep voice, I told the nice lady that I was sure we wouldn’t be able to attend. She said, “Oh, Mr. X, I’m sure Newt (she was on a first-name basis with him apparently) will be disappointed.”
I told her, “No, this isn’t Mr. X. This is his wife.”
Silence. Then some stammering. Then she hung up.
But it didn’t work. We’re still on the list.
July 28, 2010, 3:35 pmxx says:
I don’t think commenters have any right of any sort to demand that the blog authors open their posts to comments. The VC authors should do whatever they want. That being said, the blog entries on CV that are closed to comments tend to be among the worst entries on the blog. I feel like if one of the conspirators is considering closing comments on a particular post, they may want to rethink whether the post is worth publishing in the first place.
July 28, 2010, 3:38 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I feel like Milton Berle at a hotel bar, with Clint Eastwood holding the money and providing advice:
Confident.
July 28, 2010, 3:43 pmJoseph Slater says:
Welcome back, Orin.
And Lindgren’s newest post is just astonishing. This certainly isn’t the biggest non-issue Lindgren has distorted in a blatantly hackish, quite arguably dishonest way. But there’s something about how incredibly trivial this “issue” is by any objective measure, and how bizarrely outlandish and extreme the response is, that puts this in competition for first place in the very competitive category of “stupidest Lindgren post ever.”
July 28, 2010, 3:48 pmSarcastro says:
First, of course, I’d like to thank Orin Kerr for opening comments, and thus furthering the liberal conspiracy he must be part of because some liberals like him.
Second, I’d like to make fun of everyone that is commenting here still by commenting here. I mean, it’s not like Lindgren posted again without allowing comments.
Third, I’d like to note that when someone is wrong on the internet and you cannot talk to them back it is the worst thing ever. The key is to save up the vitriol for the one time he tries opening comments so you poo all over whatever thread that may be.
July 28, 2010, 3:51 pmKamal says:
Bravo. Though, are you sure you want to lift a lawyer’s text verbatim, especially an irrational one like Jim? :)
July 28, 2010, 3:55 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Arthur Kirkland:
“Berle”???
Talk about dating yourself…
…and didn’t the ancient Greeks refer to what you call “relegation” as “ostracism”?
Personally I think Shirley Jackson had a more well-thought out program.
July 28, 2010, 3:59 pmKamal says:
Dude, you just blew my mind.
July 28, 2010, 3:59 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Also, Arthur:
I thought it was Forrest Tucker who held the money.
July 28, 2010, 4:00 pmCalderon says:
I’m pretty skeptical that most readers feel this way. Randy Barnett either always or almost always closes comments, and I generally find his posts to be high quality and directly related to legal issues. I believe most people who comment believe the same thing, as they’ll say in other threads that Barnett made an interesting argument but wish he would open comments, etc.
July 28, 2010, 4:03 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The story involved Milton Berle. If there’s an updated version involving a well-known figure, I haven’t heard it. If you are aware of one, it would be nice to freshen the inventory, but I suspect standards of conduct in Hollywood hotel bars have changed.
The “relegation” I had in mind is associated with European soccer/football leagues. Their Pittsburgh Pirates and Baltimore Orioles are sent to the minors, replaced by the top lesser-league clubs.
July 28, 2010, 4:04 pmArthur Kirkland says:
From what I’ve heard, Forrest might have had his hands full.
(Besides, in the story I am familiar with, Clint wasn’t a contestant, just an instigator, speculator and money-holder.)
July 28, 2010, 4:09 pmCJColucci says:
I never met Forrest Tucker, but I once stood at a urinal right next to one being used by Larry Storch.
July 28, 2010, 4:27 pmFederal Dog says:
“Unlike Lindgren’s creepy obsession with the Dear Leader, of course, which is of interest to all.”
Many hours of abject whining show that some people are deeply obseesed by Lindgren. The only question is why their lives are so empty that they give a damn about anything that Jim Lindgren thinks.
Instead of hours and hours of whining, demanding that Lindgren “opt out” of reading Obama communications, they should shut up already, act on their own whining, and opt out of reading Jim Lindgren.
And yeah: They should set up a blog to refute everything the man posts. Given the vital issue at stake and loud public clamoring for his detractors’ opinions, I am sure it will be swamped with traffic as the nation fights to learn exactly how evil, stupid, and dishonest Jim Lindgren really is.
July 28, 2010, 4:55 pmKamal says:
You do see the irony of spending the same time complaining about people complaining, right? I mean, if you care that we are complaining, why don’t you take your own advice and “shut up already” and “opt out of reading” our comments? Dog food doesn’t taste so good, does it?
July 28, 2010, 5:01 pmHa says:
Federal Dog wrote: “how evil, stupid, and dishonest Jim Lindgren really is”
You really don’t like him.
July 28, 2010, 5:02 pmKamal says:
Yes, he does. He’s trying to be sarcastic, showing us that intellectual dishonesty on the right is okay, but intellectual dishonesty of the AZ immigration judge (who he presumes is on the left, and is being intellectually dishonest) is wrong.
July 28, 2010, 5:09 pmFederal Dog says:
“He’s trying to be sarcastic, showing us that intellectual dishonesty on the right is okay, but intellectual dishonesty of the AZ immigration judge (who he presumes is on the left, and is being intellectually dishonest) is wrong.”
What are you talking about? What do you think I posted about the immigration case?
You do realize, don’t you, that you have gone way past mere emotional imbalance and straight into open delusion?
July 28, 2010, 5:15 pmDeezRightWingNutz says:
In Soviet Russia, email list unsubscribes you.
July 28, 2010, 5:36 pmAlessandra says:
LOL – I was thinking exactly the same thing. It’s so like how a large group of 10-11 yr old kids in a playground act! too funny…
July 28, 2010, 5:36 pmKamal says:
Sorry, I was responding to Leroy Washington on the other thread, who said :
And got mixed up in my replies.
July 28, 2010, 5:39 pmAlessandra says:
it gives supporters a (rather cheesy) opportunity to feel close to the President.
=========
The little people must participate in their country’s main political events.
Actually, in reading Jim’s first mail, the thought that came to mind was: wouldn’t it be funny if, after their campaign staff had emailed out the invitations to millions of Americans, Obama got back 2356 birth cards?
July 28, 2010, 5:46 pmLN says:
Did anyone else find this comment somewhat creepy? It’s no big deal, but it’s reminiscent of how political dissent is marginalized in totalitarian dictatorships (“disagreement = mental illness”). I for one do not appreciate Federal Dog’s slowly nudging us towards a 1984-like hellhole. I prefer democracy and freedom.
You’re doing a nice job leading by example by “opting out” of reading these commenters.
And — “they should shut up already”? Did anyone else find that a little bit creepy? You know who else wanted people to shut up already? Yeah, that’s right, history’s worst totalitarian dictators. Creepy.
July 28, 2010, 6:10 pmGordo says:
geokstr: My comment was not meant to be personally insulting to Professor Lindgren. It was meant to be insulting to all far-right “intellectuals,” a group that Professor Lindgren is a member of IMHO. We witnessed the intellectual debasement of far left academics and alleged thinkers such as Juan Cole, Ward Churchill, etc. during the Bush Presidency. We are now witnessing its mirror image.
July 28, 2010, 6:22 pmFederal Dog says:
“Did anyone else find this comment somewhat creepy? It’s no big deal, but it’s reminiscent of how political dissent is marginalized in totalitarian dictatorships ”
You omit the obvious point that the poster himself conceded that I never said any such thing.
Whatever delusions of persecution you suffer from, correcting wild and false accusations that are then conceded to be in error has nothing to do with “slowly nudging us towards a 1984-like hellhole.”
July 28, 2010, 6:22 pmLN says:
Correcting false accusations is one thing, but impolitely accusing people of having delusions and being delusional reminds me of how the Nazis sterilized people for being mentally ill. It’s really very creepy if you think about it.
July 28, 2010, 6:30 pmFederal Dog says:
“Correcting false accusations is one thing, but impolitely accusing people of having delusions and being delusional reminds me of how the Nazis sterilized people for being mentally ill.”
Attacking people over remarks that were never made is delusional. That is true regardless of your (I suppose) inevitable comparison of any factual correction to Nazi extermination camps.
July 28, 2010, 7:00 pmLN says:
Your denial of the appropriateness of the analogy to Nazi extermination camps reminds me of denials that the Holocaust ever happened. Creepy!
Am I being too subtle, Federal Dog?
July 28, 2010, 7:35 pmSarcastro says:
[Aww, I think he as good for another 2 iterations at least LN! Made my day!]
July 28, 2010, 7:46 pmTerry Heinrichs says:
I tried multiple times to unsubscribe from these uninteresting and uninvited e-mails by following the stated instructions to no avail. These people do not respond. Either that or they’re on a torture mode.
July 28, 2010, 7:50 pmleo marvin says:
I’d put them all on hold until Pete Rose gets into the Hall.
July 28, 2010, 8:11 pmSarcastro's Little Brother says:
From Orin’s closed thread on the e-mail in question:
So this was for a surprise party — and Jim Lindgren ruined it!
July 28, 2010, 8:17 pmNick056 says:
This is just nutty. Dictators may rely on personal messages to inspire loyalty from their oppressed subjects, but that does not imply that other, more innocuous politicians, in sending out a personal message, are “emulating” these dictators in any way. In fact, there can be diverse, legitimate reasons for political campaigns to personalize their relationship with supporters — it’s potentially a viable communications strategy.
In fact, there are plenty of examples in American history of decidedly non-dictator presidents esnding greetings or soliciting support based on a “big family” connection. For example, Jackson notably said he “felt as a father” to the people — and Justice Story described his inauguration as “the reign of king mob” — because of the kind of support he sought to inspire from members of the (then) Democracy. Of course some people thought Jackson’s reign portended monarchy as well — and they were wrong.
Presidents serve two roles with a relationship that’s admittedly sometimes uneasy. They’re heads of state, the person repping the US abroad and upholding our republican Constitution, but they’re also the leaders of their political parties and have clear obligations there as well. This might suggest some conflicts, it definitely suggests that the government developed rather rapidly in unexpected directions from the founding onward, but it doesn’t suggest emulation dictatorship. Jim is smart enough to know this — but I don’t think he much cares.
July 28, 2010, 8:29 pmAnon Y. Mous says:
Although the email address belongs to the campaign, the body of the email was text from Michelle, and signed with her name at the bottom. I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable for the recipient to describe that as email from Michelle.
July 28, 2010, 8:37 pmpublic_defender says:
Funny, and fair. That said, Lindgren’s posts are an odd fit for this blog because they rarely do more than repeat the same point-scoring low-brow garbage you hear in the Murdoch/Talk Radio bubble. Some of the frustration you see in this comment thread is that Lindgren’s posts are frequently little more than intellectually questionable (if not dishonest) point scoring instead of serious contributions to the debate of whatever issue is being discussed. His lightweight talking point spin just seems out of place here.
July 28, 2010, 8:53 pmDaniel Chapman says:
After reading the first few comments here bitching and moaning about the fact that they can’t bitch and moan on someone else’s thread, I wish this comment thread had been closed too.
Is every post here going to turn into 200+ comments with nothing to say?
Seriously, conspirators… 30 minutes between comments would put an end to all of the snarky crap that goes on here.
July 28, 2010, 9:14 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I can’t follow the reasoning. How would a 30-minute rule prevent Prof. Lindgren from posting?
July 28, 2010, 9:43 pmMark Field says:
Never is a good rule too, AFAIC.
July 28, 2010, 11:12 pmbadlaw says:
exactly
July 29, 2010, 2:48 ampublic_defender says:
Lindgren is probably a very smart guy. That’s how he got his job and a spot on this blog. But his posts here remind me of what I used to see on Crossfire and what we currently see on Keith Olbermann, right-wing talk radio, and pretty much every show on Fox–talking point devoid of any attempt to engage the intellect. I know there are liberal blogs that are equally as shallow, but I don’t waste my time with those.
Lindgren brings down the intellectual caliber of this blog. Many of us get annoyed at his posts specifically because we enjoy the intellectual heft of the conservative and libertarian opinions generally expressed on this blog.
July 29, 2010, 7:48 ambpbatista says:
Let’s give President Obama the birthday gift of a peaceful retirement — to begin at noon on Jan. 20, 2013.
July 29, 2010, 2:32 pmA Wayne says:
“Lindgren brings down the intellectual caliber of this blog. Many of us get annoyed at his posts specifically because we enjoy the intellectual heft of the conservative and libertarian opinions generally expressed on this blog.”
So you’re saying he is a moron?
July 30, 2010, 12:08 pmpublic_defender says:
If anyone is still paying attention, I was saying the opposite. I assume he’s a smart guy given his job and the fact that Professor Volokh selected him for this blog. Reading Lindgren’s posts here is kind of like watching a top-student do C- work.
August 1, 2010, 12:45 pm